As we previously reported, on ex parte reexamination, the Examiner rejected all claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,284,471, a patent covering Janssen’s Remicade® (infliximab), as invalid for obviousness-type double patenting (“OTDP”). The USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirmed the rejection and Janssen appealed the PTAB’s decision to the Federal Circuit. …
On January 8, 2018, the Federal Circuit issued its en banc decision in Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp., No. 2015-1944. The Federal Circuit originally held that due to binding precedent, a time-bar determination under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) is final and nonappealable under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d). As we reported here,…
As we previously reported, last month a Federal Circuit panel affirmed the district court’s judgment that Apotex’s pegfilgrastim and filgrastim biosimilar candidates do not infringe Amgen’s protein refolding method patent. Amgen’s time for filing a petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc of last month’s panel decision expired on…
We post frequently about IPRs here on the blog, because they are an efficient and relatively quick way to get a decision on validity of the patents that cover drugs, biologic or otherwise. In Merck & Cie v. Gnosis S.p.A., the Supreme Court denied certiorari after the Federal Circuit affirmed that the standard…
On January 4, 2017, the Federal Circuit granted a motion for en banc rehearing in Wi-Fi One LLC v. Broadcom Corp., No. 2015-1944. In the original Wi-Fi One decision, the court held that, due to binding precedent, it could not review the PTAB’s decision to institute IPR over the Patent Owner’s assertions that the petition…